Does anyone have any info on when/if the 2017 circuit events will be voted on? And when the 2017 circuit might be made final? I’m hoping to make more of them this year and the closer they get, the harder it is for me to get on the vacation calendar at work.
Next question. Is the IFPA Pinmasters in March 2017 still part of the 2016 circuit, or is it now part of the 2017 circuit? I seem to remember Josh talking about this on a long ago C2C episode.
2017 IFPA Pinmasters would be part of the 2017-18 Circuit. Probably the 2nd event, as IIRC, Louisville Arcade Expo is is the tentative first event of 2017-18 on March 3-5.
INDISC this coming weekend is the final event in the 2016-207 circuit.
I don’t date to ask if they will make any change in the submission, selection or repartition process. Hopefully some lesson learnt from last year to avoid selecting events based on how many random followers organizer/locations have 
I always thought UL was the last event of the season?
After INDISC the final surveys will go out. When we have those back we will open up for nominations for new events and conduct voting.
Changes are being finalized now and will be announced soon.
Sweet. Wonder what the UL attendance will be since it’s the first and not the last event?
By UL are you referring to Louisville?
Yes sorry. Force of habit as I’m a college basketball crazy.
Ok, just wasn’t sure if I was missing something.
We’ve had 120+ each of the last 2 years so I expect the same for 2017.
For what it’s worth, average attendance of the new Circuit events, and the number of first-time players at those events, was very high in comparison to the events that had been on Circuit 2015-16 but not 2016-17.
What are your suggestions?
I think what he was referencing was the fact that the system could be gamed rather easily (computers are easy to fool) and that it might have favored certain events over other simply because of local following instead of based on the quality / experience of the actual tournament. While I agree with you that this year, all the circuit events ended up being awesome and the quality of events lined up with the results from the polls, I think the process to choose the events could still be improved.
I think simply having a submission process that has people from PAPA looking at the event submissions and making a decision on their own based on some sort of grading scale including factors like how many years the tournament has been around, how well that tournament will attract new players, the format of the tournament, location of the tournament, etc. Those that do not make the cut will get feedback from PAPA explaining why they did not make it, and offer some suggestions / reasons, and to try again next year.
I know that sounds like a total PITA from PAPA’s perspective, but it is one way of going about it that I can think of.
My suggestion is remove or modify rule #1 and #3 under “Criteria for Eligibility” 
Tournament must have already been held for a minimum of three years prior to applying (exceptions may be considered if a PAPA representative attends and takes a greater role in overseeing the event in the first year).
Tournament must have a running 3 year average of 40 players or greater in the highest division.
This is what happened with Circuit for the first four years, and it led to a huge pile of complaints and animosity. As someone involved in the event selection process (and then ineligible to play in Final) it was very frustrating.
As we have it right now the players make these evaluations on the events and provide the feedback to us, which is then passed along to the directors to react to if they deem necessary.
It’s impossible for PAPA to rate every tournament because we are not at every tournament.
I think voting “fraud” (or whatever you want to call it) is my only concern.
Easy solutions:
Honestly without either of these steps in place (or some other verifiable voting process, or criteria for voting) you might as well just run that stupid-ass Stern contest to determine which events make the circuit. The idea of the top-rated events automatically staying on the circuit seems fine, and the bottom rated events getting forcibly cut for a year also seems fine, although I don’t know if there is a particularly good justification as to why those groups of events don’t have to (or have a chance to in the case of the bottom-rated events) earn their way onto the circuit like other events do.
Totally agree with Pinwizj’s suggestions for a better eligibility system. Especially the 40+ player aspect in the highest division.
You missed the joke Todd.
Those WERE the rules for this past season . . . they just weren’t followed 
which events?
Cactus Jack’s - 2016 was their second annual event
Bat City Open - New for 2016
Buffalo Pinball Open - Had 20 players in 2015, 24 players in 2014, 19 players in 2013
Cleveland Pinball and Arcade Show - 2016 was their second annual event
24 Hour Sanctum - 2016 was their third annual event, first year had 39 players
OBX Flipper Arcade - New for 2016
City Champ - Didn’t have 40 players in 2014
What Josh said [beat me to posting it!]. And the Seattle folks were [rightly] not pleased, since they have three events that would meet the criteria - - NW Show, NW Championships and Shorty’s.